If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It was revised as recently as 1994. Most changes have been for explanation purposes, few have been substantive. The substantive change in 1994 was related to size.

The problem with that argument is that the standard is open to interpretation. When the authors wrote "athletic," to conformation breeders today that says something completely different when they read it. If the authors envisioned the dogs pictured when they first wrote it, I believe they would be horrified by what wins in the conformation ring today.

Thank you for the clarification. Based on comments from the show side, I thought the changes were greater than that.

Also, thank you for posting this information. This way, I will now have some reference (and pictures) whenever I decide to antagonize the show breed nuts (not all of you, just some on another particular forum) that argue that the Westminster winner this year was all muscle.

I'm sure everyone gets tired of my posting this picture but as long as there is debate over the breed std I will continue to remind everyone that our field dogs today look much more like the DCs of 50-60 yrs ago than the bench dogs of today.

I agree. I love their looks, and they all have snouts, unlike some of the ring winners today.

I do not believe that substantial change was made in the 30's...no where have I seen the
Rottie head on any labs from earlier times nor do want to see it now....

I own a male out of Blackwater Rudy on one side and Watermarks the Boss on the other. He so reminds me of Light Brigade (I think that it is the old lines showing through) and inevidiably someone comes up to ask about his pedigree. He also reminds me of the labs that we bought in the 60's...I still favor that old look.

(PS...please ignor my misspellings and typos...I am under the influence from TKR surgery last week)

I think the show labs are bred the way they are because that's what the general public wants most of them just want a house dog so for the breeders it's all about selling puppies.

Scott,

That is NOT the impression I get from the folks contacting me. Some are 2000 miles away who contact me because they can't seem to find the look they want in a PET. Because of some of these boards, I can often refer them to breeders closer, thankfully! Anne

Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
Corey Burke

I hope the OP doesn't mind, I have a collection of English Dual Ch photos that I can add to this conversation, as well as a couple of American firsts. Give me a moment, there will have to be several posts due to the number of photos.

Anyway, there they are. A great line up of who's who from the early history of the Labrador retriever. I can't help but notice that none of these dogs look much like what is winning in the Show ring today. I do see a closer similarity to the Field labs in type and structure, though not as exaggerated like some of today's field labs. Nice moderate dogs IMHO, I just wish there were more emphasis on producing this kind of Lab instead of the divergent movement we see that only seems to be widening the gap between field and show.
Great topic!